January 31, 2015, 02:37:19 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dickgrafixstop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony closing down?
« on: January 16, 2015, 01:31:43 PM »
Mr. Morita would be turning over in his grave if he could see the mess his successors have made at Sony.
They make outstanding professional television lenses, but rely on Zeiss to provide good glass for their
cameras.  With the exception of the new A series full frame cameras, the last years have provided one mediocre offer after another.  They coasted on Minolta's start with the purchase, then lost their way completely in cameras.  With the overall Sony corporations financials, I wouldn't be surprised to see them dump cameras as completely as they did personal computers.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Wait for 5D4 or go for 5D3/6D right now ?
« on: January 11, 2015, 01:49:40 PM »
In the end, it really doesn't matter.  If you make a "mistake" in your purchase, sell it and try something else.
No one, in a short forum blurb, can understand your style, financial status, motivation or how GAS affects you.
The best camera is the one you have with you - maybe your I phone is all you need.

Whatever's in front of you - or to the left or to the right.  It's a marvelous area and the opportunities are boundless.  If you want standard tourist shots, buy the postcards.

I'd keep it simple - take the 6D and the 50 1.8.  If you need an additional lens, buy the new 24mm pancake that
will fit nicely in your pocket.  Unless this trip is specifically a "photo" trip, you won't want the tripod or the extra
weight and bother of the other gear.  Your best investment might be a plain shoulder strap without the Canon logo - and if you're really worried about thieves, get one with the embeded stainless wire. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Leica really worth it?
« on: January 02, 2015, 10:52:18 AM »
I'd like to meet someone with a brand new Porsche who says "It's nothing special - just a Volkswagen with a big
engine".  He could be a Leica owner.  Sure, they have a "special" past, fine glass and a body you could drive nails with, but "nothing special" - if you have enough spare change.  Using one requires more than a basic knowledge of photography, a mindset to take "photographs instead of pictures" - and not needing a longer focal length than
135mm.  It also requires good eyesight to use the rangefinder, good psychomotor skills to focus, and a touch of
arrogance.  For an entertaining evening try the Leica user forum at l-camera-forum.com.

EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: December 22, 2014, 07:25:08 PM »
I'd be happy if they'd just reach an agreement with Zeiss for the auto-focus wizardry.  I hate being pushed
towards Sony for high quality lenses.  (Canon could also study the pricing algorythms that Fuji uses.)

Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:57:55 PM »
another vote for the 70-300L - it's cheap enough compared to the others that you can buy a
crop body for the reach. 

Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: December 09, 2014, 08:35:16 PM »
Do you need a light meter for your class - evidently.  Do you need a light meter for $600+ - probably not.
Your best solution might be the light meter ap for your smartphone (iphone and android versions available from
free to $10.00).  Not a bad solution and with a little practice and use, you can decide if it's worth it to
"invest" in more specialized equipment.  (Don't forget, the light meter in your camera has made it hard for
the few manufacturers of light meters to survive.)

Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 09, 2014, 08:30:12 PM »
If you're happy with the iMac, familiar or proficient with OSX.x, like the quality of your monitor and have the available cash, I'd get the new MacPro coffeecan desktop processor.  Your conversion time will be about ten
minutes, your learning curve next to nothing and the processing speed is enough to run a small country.
After Mac, you'll find either Win7 or Win8 will leave you frustrated. True, photoshop is about the same, but all
the windows stuff required to make it work is not.

Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 09, 2014, 08:23:56 PM »
I would use Shutterfly or one of the other "book" printers.  For personal use the Canon Pixma Pro 100 is an excellent price performer (look on Craigslist for one of the bundled printers someone is selling minus the bar code rebate but basically unopened).  Epson has a similar offering to each of the Pixma Pro printers at similar prices, but I haven't seen any particularly good bundles for Epson.  For 17"minimum width, Canon, Epson and Hewlett Packard each have a variety of photo printers - typically able to handle 17, 24,36,42,60, or 66 inch papers.  You're talking a whole new level of complexity here with complicated software (and not inexpensive) RIPs, calibration options and expensive inks and media.  I think it's about $1100 to re-populate the inks in my HP.  Flipside is, of
course, the ink cartridges are the size of milk cartons and tend to produce a bunch of square footage.  Be careful
of used large format printer "bargains" as both the ink and printhead replacement can be expensive - not to mention the drive belts and other maintenance parts.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Co-worker dumps $5k on Nikon
« on: December 08, 2014, 11:28:24 AM »
Good for her.  Most of us wish we could drop five grand on camera gear before a big trip.  We might buy something different, but if she gets the image quality she thought she'd get, it was a good purchase.  If not, someone may get a hell of a deal on craigslist.

« on: November 25, 2014, 04:58:28 PM »
fortunately GAS is easily cured with money.  If not, blocking sites like canonrumors and other photo sites on your computer is a less expensive remedy but much more painful.   

I'd keep the 70-200, add the 17-85, and get the 100-400.  On a crop body, the 85 and the 135 both fit comfortably in the 70-200 range.  I'd look to buy either of the other lenses if after living with the first three for a while and see where the "holes" are in your style of shooting.  Then I'd buy a very big bag with a very strong shoulder strap and consider buying a gym membership if you don't already have one.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8II or F4 for Zoo Shoot
« on: November 25, 2014, 04:34:07 PM »
If you're renting, consider the 70-300IS.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 is ii vs new 100-400
« on: November 25, 2014, 04:20:42 PM »
Since you have a 70-200 you should be able to answer both speed and reach challenges.  I find the 70-200 has plenty of "reach" for water polo, especially if I can change my position near the pool if required.  Yet some of the
pools are not well lighted so the f2.8 version is particularly helpful.   If you don't have that consideration, good for you.  In terms of surfing - don't often experience surfing at night so lens speed isn't an issue.  All of Canon lenses work well in daylight, but some are better than others in weather sealing and salt air.  I haven't had a chance with the new 100-400, but the old one works quite well from the shore.  If the new lens really has noticeably better IS, then
it may be a better choice for shooting surfing and sailing from a small boat.   you may also want to consider the
70-300L  with a new 7DII as an excellent combination for your preferred sports.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20